The Church’s Response to Suffering

Here is a great quote from Alejandro Garcia-Rivera on the need for the church to identify with and respond to the suffering found in the world. The point is, as Christ followers, we are called to an active faith that will not yield to despair.

Postmodernism thrives precisely because it sees the suffering of this world as having reached horrendous and senseless proportions. A church that is methodologically indifferent to senseless suffering is at odds with the methods of Jesus himself. Only a Jesus who belongs to the church that is not afraid to identify itself with the suffering of this world can have any rational claim on the world itself. In other words, the normative character of the truth of the church’s faith is protected, defended and nurtured by a praxis that will not regard as normative the senseless suffering of billions.

Garcia-Rivera, Alejandro. ”What Are Theologians Saying About Christology? Faith and the Poor.” America 197, no. 7 (September 17, 2007): 11-13.

Pastors NOT Puppets

The Body of Christ needs pastors not puppets (persons whose actions are controlled by another). Tragically, too many in the church today have a distorted or warped sense of the pastoral office, due, I think, to a misguided ecclesiastical democritization. That is, congregations are not democracies! They do not possess the biblical authority to vote to remove pastors – except in cases of moral failure, financial impropriety, heretical teaching, and uncontrolled anger. Nor do churches have the right to dictate how their pastors minister or what programs they implement – so long as these are being done within biblical parameters. In short, I believe we need to gain a godly perspective on our own time by considering a couple insights on the issue of pastoral leadership from church history.

First, here are two short selections from the Didache (early Christian teaching manual dated to the late 1st century) on how pastors are to be treated with honor and respect:

My child, day and night “you should remember him who preaches God’s word to you,” and honor him as you would the Lord. For where the Lord’s nature is discussed, there the Lord is. Every day you should seek the company of saints to enjoy their refreshing conversation. You must not start a schism, but reconcile those at strife.

Now, you should welcome anyone who comes your way and teaches you all we [the apostles] have been saying. . . if his teaching furthers the Lord’s righteousness and knowledge, welcome him as the Lord.

Second, this section from The Schleitheim Confession (an Anabaptist confession composed in 1527), which draws on the apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 3:2-7, 5:17-20, is especially instructive:

We are agreed as follows on pastors in the church of God: The pastor in the church of God shall, as Paul has prescribed, be one who out-and-out has a good report of those who are outside the faith. This office shall be to read, to admonish and teach, to warn, to discipline, to ban in the church, to lead out in prayer for the advancement of all the brethren and sisters, to lift up the bread when it is to be broken, and in all things to see to the care of the body of Christ, in order that it may be built up and developed, and the mouth of the slanderer be stopped.

This one moreover shall be supported of the church which has chosen him, wherein he may be in need, so that he who serves the gospel may live of the gospel as the Lord has ordained. But if a pastor should do something requiring discipline, he shall not be dealt with except [on the testimony of] two or three witnesses. And when they sin they shall be disciplined before all in order that the others may fear.

In sum, woe to any congregation that attempts to control their pastor(s) by withholding support (spiritual and financial), by intimidation and manipulation, and/or by gossip and slander. For this the wrath of God is coming. Pastors are to be overseers led by the Spirit of God, not guided by their parishoners or recent religious trends. To reverse this order is to cause the name of Christ to fall into disrepute.

A Healthy Response to Suffering

Although I do not think it is healthy to want to suffer, I do think that as Christians we must be willing to suffer for the sake of righteousness. Good will triumph over evil, but the price of victory often seems to require suffering. A healthy response to suffering, then, includes at least the following three things:

1. Persistently praying and petitioning God for deliverance and vindication.
2. Obediently submitting to God’s way of overcoming evil with good-waiting faithfully and patiently for his redemption (allowing God room to avenge the wrongs done to you as Romans 12:19 advises).
3. Resolutely maintaining hope.

The author to the Hebrews said it this way:

“During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek” (5:7-10).

“God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised” (6:10-12).

Unjust Suffering and the Coming Kingdom

In response to my querie about life’s tough questions, one loyal reader raised the issue of God’s justice in the present world. That is, given the “already/not yet” tension that exists with respect to the establishment of the Kingdom of God, what should our expectations be regarding the administration of justice on behalf of Kingdom activities. This also raises the question of our role in spiritual warfare.

The tension is plainly stated in Hebrews 2:8. For, in this battleground we inhabit between God and his holy angels and the adversary and his evil minions, it is clear that God has “already” attained the victory and placed Christ over all things. Nevertheless, it is likewise evident that we do “not yet” see all things subjected to him. It is here, during this unfolding of the new order of things, that we find ourselves submitting to the reign of King Jesus by faith while his enemies are still in the process of being abolished (1 Cor. 15:25-26). So, What ought citizens of the Kingdom to expect as they continue to live out their lives in this present evil age that is passing away?

First, having aligned ourselves with Christ, we should expect to be vindicated on the final day of judgment. Next, having received his Spirit, we should expect miraculous signs and wonders to occur as the Kingdom advances. Finally, we should expect resistence and unjust suffering. Although the final outcome is now certain, the battle continues to rage until the last enemy-death-is done away with.

However, it should be noted that expecting unjust suffering is not the same as resigning oneself to it. Indeed, patiently enduring such suffering-like Christ did-is the form resistence takes in the new order (1 Peter 2:18-25). Rather than retaliate, then, we courageously restrain ourselves as we wait for God’s redemption.

Doubt

Doubt is a concept that denotes a broad spectrum of privation or lack in relation to trust and belief. It admits of degrees as well as certain descriptive thresholds. Therefore, one can coherently speak about degrees of doubt that can have beneficial results, while maintaining that, below a certain threshold, other degrees of doubt can be deleterious. In a positive sense, doubt refers to an honest questioning of truth-claims, especially related to trust and trustworthiness that is part of the legitimate struggle within the process of forming an authentic faith. As such, doubting seeks reasonable justification for belief; it attempts to verify the trustworthiness of the object of trust. However, doubt can also refer to a negative breakdown in the discernment process whereby truth is not recognized. This decisive stall in the course of verification in which belief is suspended or trust is withheld can have various causes. As noted in my last post, previous psycho-social experiences may inhibit a person’s ability to trust. In addition, a person’s volition can hinder belief. For instance, one can willfully refuse to assent to or hedge against what is shown to be the most probable conclusion. In this sense, doubt does not describe the beneficial process of avoiding a pretentious, hypocritical faith; but rather, it refers to the antithesis of justified true belief–an ongoing state of suspended belief or trust in which one willfully refuses to embrace what is known to be the case.

Trust and Trustworthiness

As noted in my previous post on faith, the concept of trust refers to the social dimension of faith, since it involves decision and is intimately conjoined to action. Again, trust is always in something or someone–it requires an object. Trust, then, is the decision to believe and act as though something is true, right, or sufficient based on the worthiness of its object. As such, trust is something that is either given or withheld by a person depending upon his or her knowledge of the truth, reliability, or adequacy of the object. Thus, although trust (with respect to faith) is fundamentally relational in that it is a dynamic, inter-subjective response between persons, it does have an intellectual component.

Since trust is understood in a psycho-social context, the sum total of a person’s relational experiences are brought to bear on his or her ability to give trust. Indeed, prior to giving trust or entering into a vulnerable, trusting relationship, a person who has experienced unhealthy, broken, even abusive interpersonal relationships must unlearn pattens of distrust. This is to say, trust (or its privation) is something that develops over time in accordance with a person’s individual and collective life experience.

Trustworthiness is being worthy or deserving of trust. As such, it provides warrant or justification for trust. In short, trust is predicated on truth. That is, it is dependent upon a state of affairs in which the object of trust that is believed to be reliable is in fact reliable. Hence, trust may be appropriately or mistakenly given depending upon the truth status of a particular belief concerning an object. Trustworthiness, then, is a measure of the accuracy of one’s epistemological convictions (what is believed to be true) in correspondence to what is ontologically the case (what is actually true).

It is important to understand these concepts because they comprise the crux of the Christian faith: God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ as trustworthy, and therefore, deserving of our trust. The resurrection of Jesus demonstrates the reliability of his word–he loves us with an everlasting love that will never fail. In short, a trust decision concerning the trustworthiness of God is at the center of Christianity. Do you believe God’s love is true? Do you dare to trust in him by accepting his sacrifice for your sins as sufficient for salvation? Will you take the risk and receive the redemption offered through God’s anointed one and enter into a restored love relationship with him?

Here are some promises to consider as you decide whether or not to entrust yourself to God:

Many are the woes of the wicked, but the Lord’s unfailing love surrounds the man who trusts in him (Psalms 32:10, NIV).

He who gives attention to the word will find good, and blessed is he who trusts in the Lord (Proverbs 16:20, NASB).

…if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame”…”Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13, NIV; referencing Isaiah 28:16 and Joel 2:32).

What is Faith?

The position piece in the August 2008 issue of Christianity Today entitled, “Faith Is Not a Freak Show: Let’s make sure we learn the right lessons from the primary season,” makes this astute observation about civil religion in America:

“It doesn’t really matter whom Americans call God, so long as that God is for freedom and for America. In fact, now the word faith has replaced God, as the object of faith has become increasingly less important.”

The last line really stood out and resonated with my recent experience. Nowadays, it seems many self-described spiritual people simply claim to have faith in faith. Frankly, I’m not sure what that means. But in light of the popularity of this putatively inoffensive, all-inclusive, contentless definition of faith, I think it is important for Christians to clarify what they mean when they use the term faith. Here is what I take to be the biblical meaning of faith:

Faith is a state of believing, which is justified according to the reliability of the object or the subject that is being trusted. A belief is the mental assent to the truthfulness of a conclusion, that is, the noetic acceptance of its congruence with reality (the real state of affairs, things as they actually are). As such, it is formed or developed in the human mind. In other words, a person’s knowledge, feelings, and will are all significant factors in the reasoning process that precedes assent; thus, they can either foster or hinder faith. However, the main point is this–the essence of faith requires an object or a subject. In short, I must have faith in something or someone (e.g., faith in God; see Mark 11:22; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 1:21).

In the New Testament the Greek term for faith (pistis) is also used to refer to a collection of beliefs–that which is believed, a body of faith, or specific teachings (Philippians 1:27; Titus 2:2; Jude 3). For Christians, this propositional content is summed up in the deliberate profession, “Jesus is Lord.” As a result, the term often denotes the acceptance of the gospel message of salvation based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. However, given the metaphysical nature of this conclusion, believing that the resurrection is true entails believing in the risen Jesus (John 3:16; Acts 3:12-16; Ephesians 1:15; 1 Timothy 3:13). Indeed, true knowledge about Jesus is dynamically linked to an actual encounter with him.

Consequently, in addition to rational assent, the notion of faith also conveys the relational concepts of conviction, commitment, and consecration. God is a speaking God–the initiator or the antecedent of faith. Accordingly, faith is a dependent response to God’s voice. It is submitting to God’s leading and guiding in an act of total reliance upon his promises (Acts 13:3, 14:22, 16:6-10, 23:11). Undeniably, then, faith is an ongoing, intersubjective relationship in which we assume an orientation of humble discipleship, a receptive posture of listening and learning.

Given the above discussion, it is evident that the meaning of faith includes the idea of faithfulness or trustworthiness. It requires a position of confidence in which a subject aligns his or her motives, considerations, choices, and aspirations according to the credibility and fidelity of the other. God’s faithfulness, then, logically and ontologically precipitates man’s faith. In other words, God has made himself known such that he has shown his reliability–God’s trustworthiness has been demonstrated in history and is known through revelation, tradition, reason, and experience. Hence, faith requires an initial mental assent to certain propositions about God as well as a continuing trust in a living, dynamic relationship with God.

Lastly, I am convinced that biblical faith is a dynamic, future-oriented attitude of living-in-trust. It constitutes an intersubjective relationship with God that grows and develops in knowledge and understanding through shared experience. That is, there are degrees of faith (and doubt) as well as a maturing of faith (Ephesians 4:13). As has been noted, faith is a living act of trust for a future outcome based on past reliability. In sum, faith is a receptive, trusting orientation to the unlimited possibilities present in communion with God that finds its certainty in his trustworthy nature and consistent character as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

For a fuller discussion see F. Gerrit Immink’s book, Faith: A Practical Theological Reconstruction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Real Repentance and Renewal

Malachi, God’s messenger, warns us that genuine repentance and renewal must be evidenced in intergenerational reconciliation:

Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse  (Malachi 4:5-6).

Therefore, unless we obey in this area of generational restoration, it is foolish to think that the Lord is pleased with our worship. In fact, carrying on as if nothing is wrong makes our offence that much worse. In other words, if there are no “gray-hairs” worshiping among you – caution: your offering may be an affront to God and your community devoted to destruction (herem). Likewise, if the young have been traded for tradition, you have reason for grave concern.

Re-authenticating Authenticity

I applaud the emphasis among Emerging Church leaders on being authentic. However, despite its frequent use, the term is rarely defined in full. The Oxford Excyclopedic English Dictionary gives the meaning as follows: 1 a of undisputed origin; genuine. b reliable or trustworthy. In my estimation it seems much of the focus has been on being reliable or trustworthy. Without question, Christians ought to be characterized by authenticity in this sense. There should be no pretence or hypocrisy among us. Likewise, there has been much attention given to being genuine in contrast to the marketing hype and sham of the church growth movement. While I concur with this insight (see Douglas Webster’s Selling Jesus: What’s Wrong with Marketing the Church for an excellent assessment of this flawed trend), I wonder whether we have neglected to grapple with the idea of being of undisputed origin.

I do not intend here to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the origins of the Emergent Movement. In fact, I think many of the insights and conversations that have been initiated by the movement have been prompted by the Spirit of God. That being said, I do think some elements of it stem more from the preferences and perspectives of this generation than from prophetic revelation and Spirit-led renewal.

Now, I realize that using the prefix “post-” (i.e., post-modern, post-conservative, post-evangelical) means that one is trying to transcend a particular period or movement such that its noble features are retained while its negative features are abandoned (thus, the prefix does not automatically mean “anti-” or against, even though it may be implied at times). However, what I am driving at is this: I am afraid that the Emergent Movement (in general) is post-parental in precisely the sense of having abandoned their parents and grandparents as reputed negative, inhibiting influences. Perhaps, in many instances they have been stubborn and squelched the Spirit. Nevertheless, we must re-think our response: Are our preferred worship styles, communication forms, and practices what God really desires? Do they please the Ancient of Days enough that he endorses our Sunday segregation from our parents and grandparents? Could it be that genuine unity and community require preferential sacrifices? We need to ask, Who is absent from our so-called inclusive communities? and Why?

My point is I have come across a lot of talk and writing promoting the need to be interdenominational, multi-cultural, and even intertribal, but very few challenges to be intergenerational. What if the real mission of God (missio Dei) for this emerging generation is a ministry of reconciliation – including, but not limited to, reconciling with those who have gone before us in the faith? Indeed, we ought to recall that real renewal includes dreams for the old as well as visions for the young (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17).

Becoming before Belonging

Although I think the Emergent/Emerging Church Movement (or network of missional churches) has raised some excellent points in its critique of the modern, mega-church movement and has several praiseworthy features, I do have a few serious concerns. Since what it means to be emergent is expressed in a variety of local ways, I realize my comments may not apply across the spectrum. My intent over the next few posts, then, is not to make blanket condemnations, rather I hope to provide a few general words of caution about some troubling trends. The first trend I wish to address is the recent denigration of the need to become a Christian in order to belong to the church.

Let me say it bluntly, it is detrimental to the spiritual health of the church to distort what it means to belong to the community of faith. By definition, the church is the assembly (ekklesia) of believers; therefore, one must become a Christian to truly belong. It is absurd to think a nonbeliever can legitimately belong to a community whose essential nature or defining feature is faith. I think it is also important to ask ourselves, Why would a nonbeliever even want to belong to a church without becoming a Christian? (Note: visiting and attending are not the same as belonging – the latter entails identification).

First and foremost, the church is an organic entity (the Body of Christ); it is not a building or a nonprofit organization. This does not mean that we should spend our time sorting the tares from the wheat (Matthew 13:28-30). The true church is not identical with the visible church. This also does not mean that genuine seekers are not welcome. They are. However, this does mean that the primary purpose of the church is for believers to gather together to worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. This also means that a profession of faith and evidence of maturity are requirements for leadership and service within the church (John 14:15; Acts 6:3; 1 Timothy 3:1-10; Titus 1:6-9). The church is to be a community identified and distinguished by its love for God and one another, a counter-cultural witness to the redeeming work of Christ on the cross. We should never underestimate the attractiveness to the watching world of a mature fellowship of Christ-followers loving and caring for one another in unity (John 13:34-35; 17:23).

Of course, one of the main goals in gathering together as believers is to train and equip each other in order to become more effective evangelists, apologists, and witnesses of the gospel to those who have yet to join our fellowship (see Ephesians 4:1-16). Here is the crux of the issue: by incorporating nonbelievers into our congregations as full participants we are giving them the misguided impression that they can commune with God prior to repentance and faith. The truth is they have a sin problem that needs to be dealt with. Furthermore, without some way of ensuring those who belong to the church believe and seek to live the gospel message of Jesus, nonbelievers who hang around long enough wind up in positions of influence (e.g., voting partners, teachers, board members, etc.) with the ability to alter the mission of the church. Erasing the requirement that those who belong to the church must be believers likewise eliminates the distinction between the church and any other social club. It seems to me that being missional is antithetical to cavalierly dismissing the need to rightly discern whether or not individuals really seek to follow Christ’s teaching and example and therefore whether they truly belong to His Body as contributing members or whether they are actually parasites depleting their host.